Kamla Devi v. Bijender Gupta

1. The petitioner (respondent in the eviction petition) has challenged the order dated 1^' May, 2012 passed by the Addl. Rent Controller (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in eviction petition bearing No.E-222/11 whereby the petitioner's application for leave to defend was dismissed and the eviction order was passed against the petitioner/tenant and in favour of the respondent/landlord in respect of the tenanted premises, i.e. property ^ N0.496-E/3, Mahavir Block, Bholanath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-110032 (hereinafter referred to as the "suit property"), as shown in red colour in the site plan filed along with the eviction petition.

2. The case of the respondent before the learned Trial Court was that the respondent is the landlord and owner of the suit property by virtue of the GPA and other documents executed by its previous landlady Smt. Jaino Devi on 29*'^ December, 1990. The petitioner was inducted as tenant by said Smt. Jaino Devi in respect of three rooms set with a kitchen, open courtyard RC. Rev. No.408/2012 Page 1 of[4] 2013:DHC:8447 on the ground floor of the suit property at a monthly rent of'100/- excluding other charges. The respondent himself is residing in a tenanted premises comprising of one room set and has four children including one son and three daughters. His son is of marriageable age and he needs the suit property for his own use as well as for his expanding family. Therefore, the eviction petition was filed against the petitioner under Section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Acf).

3. Upon service, the petitioner filed the application for leave to defend, alleging therein that it is the petitioner who is the owner of the suit property. She claimed her ownership of the suit property by virtue of documents executed by Sh. Suresh Chand son of Sh. Puran Singh and his mother Smt. Jaino Devi in 1990. It was stated in-the application for leave to defend that the said documents were misplaced and in order to take the undue advantage of the position and to extract money in the form of rent from the petitioner, the eviction petition was filed by the respondent. She stated that the document have been traced, i.e. agreement to sell and GPA dated 7^*^ July, 1990, both executed by Sh. Suresh Chand. However, the documents executed by Smt. Jaino Devi were not found.

4. After hearing the application for leave to defend, the Addl. Rent Controller disbelieved the version of the petitioner/tenant by considering the entire gamut of the matter. The reasons thereofare mentioned in paras 11 & 12 ofthe impugned order. The same read as under:- "11. In the present case respondent has raised dispute about relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. She has also raised dispute about title of the petitioner over the property in question. She has pleaded that she was tenant of Smt. Jaino Devi, however, Smt. Jaino Devi and her son Sh. Suresh Chand had sold this property to her. She could find RC. Rev. No.408/2012 ^ Agreement to sell and GPA both executed by Sh. Suresh on 07.07.1990, but could not-find the document executed by Smt. Jaino Devi. Petitioner took advantage of this fact and extorted and illegally collected rent from her. Shepaid rentto the petitioner due to order passed by the Court of Sh. S.S Malhotra, the then Id. ARC, though she was not liable to pay any rent to petitioner. She had also sent notice dated 04.06.2007 to legal heirs of Smt. Jaino Devi and petitioner, thereby stating about the sell of the property in question by Smt. Jaino Devi, however, this notice was not replied by Smt. Jaino Devi or the petitioner, which shows their admission of the claim ofthe respondent.

12. The respondent has admitted the judgment was passed by Sh. S.S Malhotra, in eviction petition no. E79/06 filed by petitioner herein against respondent u/s 14(l)(a) of the Act. This judgment was passed on 08.02.2007 and admittedly respondent has not challenged this judgment till date, though she claims to have filed a suit for recovery of rent against the petitioner. In this judgment, the Court has already decided the question of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, holding that petitioner has purchased this property from erstwhile owner Smt. Jaino Devi. Petitioner has filed certified copies ofjudgment as well as statement given by the respondent in that case. In that case respondent did not take plea that she had already purchased this property from Smt. Jaino Devi or her son. Rather she deposed and admitted that she had been tenant of Smt. Jaino Devi. Respondent had only challenged the relationship of landlord and tenant with the petitioner, but her objection was overruled by the Court and eviction petition was decided in favour of the petitioner. Respondent had filed her affidavit dated 24.09.2004 in that case and was cross examined on 29.10.2004. She did not whisper at all about her ownership or about misplacement of her title documents. Even in this case she has not filed any document as alleged by her. Moreover, respondent had filed a suit against Smt. Renu @ Jaino Devi, on 07.09.1990, wherein she herself pleaded that she was a tenant under Smt. Jaino Devi. She did not plead about her ownership or purchase of this property in 1990. Thus, I find that except making her oral RC. Rev. No. 408/2012 Page 3 of[4] assertions, respondent iias not shown any material in support of her claim of ownership. Most importantly, since it is not the case of respondent that she purchased this property after aforesaid judgment, she is stopped from changing her stand in contradiction to, her own stand taken in previous proceedings of Suit and Eviction Petition as well as to decision given in aforesaid eviction petition, regarding relationship of landlord and tenant between theparties."

5. The eviction order was accordingly passed against the petitioner/ tenant who has challenged the same before this Court inthepresent petition.

6. During the course of hearing, the petitioner was asked to produce the original documents, if any, executed by Smt.Jaino Devi. However, the same } were not produced. Even, the original documents, allegedly, executed by Suresh Chand are not produced. Learned counsel for the petitionerwas not able to meet the query raised by the Court as to whether the said alleged documents, i.e. agreement to sell and GPA dated 7^*^ July, 1990 were registered documents or not. No positive answer was given by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for both the parties have also informed that the respondent has already taken the possession of the suit property from the ^ petitioner in due course oflaw through Bailiffin execution proceedings.

8. Under these circumstances, the version of the petitioner cannot be accepted, as the learned Trial Court has already gone into each and every aspect of the matter. The present petition is accordingly dismissed along with the pending application. ^JJ^nmohS^sinS^h) JUDGE DECEMBER 13, 2013 RC. Rev. No.408/2012 Page 4 of[4]